Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Title: CA Senate Approves Resolution Opposing Prop 8
Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I'm torn on this one. Prop 8 was a disgrace, but if people really cared they would have been out voting. Or maybe they were, & it truly is the will of the people.
Then again the will of the people might have been segregated schools back in 1954. I don't think many people today would say the SC made the wrong decision on that one, so maybe this is the right move.
My gut says let the population realize they fucked up and fix it themselves, but maybe government intervention is the right choice. Either way I don't live in California so I can't do anything about it. It will certainly be interesting to watch this play out.
Viper GTS
Yes, the will of the people was against integration, against giving women the right to vote, against giving Indians the right to vote and the right to their own lands, in favor of deporting the Chinese who built our railroads, and interning the Japanese.
Democracy has its weaknesses.
-Robert
You could argue that all of the groups you have mentioned cannot change who they are, where a lot of people see homosexuality as a "choice". Some people would resort to using science to proof that people are born gay or whatever, but then a lot of people reject science in this country.
I'm neutral on this issue. I didn't vote for or against prop 8.
Whether homosexuality is a choice or not has nothing to do with the legalization of gay marriage or any other gay rights. If proof of homosexuality as a natural occurance was found, do you think that would change the minds of bible bashere and bigots? We should not make laws based on which behaviors we approve of, but on justice. Outside of religion and the foolish minds of bigots, there are no downsides to granting people moe rights. If you're neutral on civil rights, something is wrong.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I think you just proved his point. If you don't like the outcome, then the "will of the people" is wrong and should be tossed. Why even bother having the people vote on anything then? Much easier (and honest) to just have a group of "enlightened" PC liberals establish the rules and be done with it.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I was arguing what I believe to be the fact that the conclusion the ballot measure was unconstitutional because it is a major revision of California Constitutional Law is a legal question that needs to be settled, and that, at this point in time, it has not been so settled as Eeezee seemed to have assumed, that, in fact, legal experts think it may not be a major revision at all, and is, therefore, and will be ruled, perfectly Constitutional.
Can you point me to the legal arguments that are credibly arguing that the Supreme Court's identifying marriage as a core right doesn't settle the issue?
I understand there are bad arguments claiming that; I'd like to see a good one.
I would suggest that the right of marriage can be taken by amendment to the constitution. It does not matter why the change is made.
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: lupi
They must have solved the budget and unemployment problems already I see if they now tackling this fishinf expedition.
Thank you! I'll be a resident of TX very soon (instead of CA) . Fvcking retarded state legislature should be figuring out how to fix CA than to debate on this kind of bullsh!t.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I was arguing what I believe to be the fact that the conclusion the ballot measure was unconstitutional because it is a major revision of California Constitutional Law is a legal question that needs to be settled, and that, at this point in time, it has not been so settled as Eeezee seemed to have assumed, that, in fact, legal experts think it may not be a major revision at all, and is, therefore, and will be ruled, perfectly Constitutional.
Can you point me to the legal arguments that are credibly arguing that the Supreme Court's identifying marriage as a core right doesn't settle the issue?
I understand there are bad arguments claiming that; I'd like to see a good one.
I would suggest that the right of marriage can be taken by amendment to the constitution. It does not matter why the change is made.
Your statement is at odds with the Supreme Court ruling in April 2008, it seems to me.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Title: CA Senate Approves Resolution Opposing Prop 8
Isn't government supposed to represent the people? On Prop 8 the people have already spoken.
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Atreus21
In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.
So are the elderly...or certain people who have undergone certain surgeries that make procreation impossible.
Regarding AIDS:
Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?
Then along the same lines, it also statistically helps other STDs proliferate among a heterosexual population.
The governmental response needs to be very narrow.
If the state wishes to undergo all the difficulty in determining to 100% accuracy that a person cannot procreate with one of the opposite sex, then I would have no argument against them if they denied marriage to that person, on that basis.
Well at least you are consistent.
FWIW, surgery is no guarantee. Women have gotten pregnant after having their tubes tied.
I was actually referring more to a person who had major surgery that made procreation completely impossible.
My point with that argument is that the state need make no investigation to determine the possibility of procreation when considering a gay couple.
But there are circumstances with heterosexuals where they cannot physically procreate. Say, for example, someone who had her uterus removed due to cancer. It doesn't require much investigation by the state. Plus, the elderly are another example.
What narrow response would you advocate?
Before you even get to a narrow response, there needs to be an actual governmental interest that can outweigh the personal liberty at stake. I just don't see any reason why the government would need to ban gay marriage to meet any sort of governmental interest. You brought up the AIDS issue, but banning gay marriage doesn't address it at all.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but is there any other reason to ban gay marriage outside of moral reasons - which alone are not sufficient?
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Unfortunately, Atreus, you are a bigot and like all bigots you can't see your own bigotry. But the people arguing with you can see it. Like all bigots your real justification for your prejudice is that you are right. You don't know why you are right, you just feel it. It is the nature of irrational prejudice. You have a terrible disease. Try to get over it. Try to understand that in my world you wouldn't be allowed to marry because you are stupid. It is much better for my ideal society that stupid genes don't mingle. It's just the way I see it. For the good of society I would have to cut off your balls.
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm speaking from a philosophical point. I don't care about legality. Law has been wrong before, is now, and will be again.
And by the CA Supreme Court's ruling, how is it polygamy and marriage between or among family members is still criminalized? And if you support this ruling, do you implicitly endorse this type of behavior? Someone could cite this ruling to justify his or her desire to marry his or her 3 sisters.
We've been over this one before, and the differences have been explained to you. Regardless of all other arguments however, neither polygamists nor incestuous couples are protected classes under the California constitution, so the barriers to their marriage do not face as high a hurdle.
If "people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice" according to the CA SC, on what basis is that fundamental right denied to incestuous couples? And why does the SC discriminate against people with more than one partner?
Like I said, this has been explained to you before. Incestuous couples lead to higher incidences of birth defects and other genetic disorders. Furthermore, incestuous couples are not a protected class as I already mentioned. (neither are polygamists)
Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.
You need to learn to back up your arguments with more than hot air.
WHAT societal ills? For the third time, you had your chance in court, and failed to show it.
What do you mean by protected class?
The CA Supreme Court ruling - if you could be bothered to click the links we provided you - said that gays are now legally a protected class in CA, insofar as like other protected classes of race and gender, that there is a scrutiny applied to any law regarding them to carefully consider whether the law has justification, rather than being mere bigotry.
And even if incestuous couples lead to higher birth defects and disorders, so what? Aren't they entitled to marry the person of their choice, as defined by the Supreme Court of CA?
You don't understand how the biological problems with incestuous children are a legitimate public issue? You need to deal with that before you ramble further here.
One could make a good argument that the inability to produce children is a societal ill.
So, when we say protected class, we really mean that they have privileges other minorities don't, such as polygamists. I really don't care for this.
The proliferation of AIDS among gay men could be called a legitimate public issue.
1. inability to produce children? so we need testing and verification that a couple WILL produce children to issue a marriage licence?
2. Minorities is any underrepresented group.
3. You really think that married gay men would spread it more than single gay men? What are you, a retarded seashell?
Indeed, I'm a retarded seashell.
I don't think you are, i just think that you've been spoonfed these arguments and they are daft arguments, whoever told you to believe in them is the retarded seashell, my friend.
You really need to think about these things yourself, because i don't think you are daft, i think you're pretty bright from what i've seen in other posts and you can figure this out on your own, if you do and still insist on banning gay marriage, i'd love to hear and debate the arguments, i'm sure that would be a much better debate.
Jake
FWIW, I'm happy with the current state of affairs regarding gay marriage: It's still up to the states.
What I vehemently oppose is the institution of a Roe v. Wade of gay marriage.
The main reason I'm here is because I think people are too quick to dismiss the anti-gay marriage crowd as religion zealots. I want to indicate that there is a secular argument against it.
Obviously i was wrong, you really are that stupid and don't tell me you're not a religious zealot because we both know you are.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm back, and good morning.
To me, there are reasons the state should not allow gay marriage, which have no moral component. My argument about procreation still stands, in that propogation of society is a compelling state interest.
I also think it unwise, given the conventional wisdom that a child is typically brought up by a mother and a father, that we encourage a social policy that denies children these developmental necessities.
I don't expect you to agree with them, but there are non-moral arguments on the anti-gay-marriage side.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm back, and good morning.
To me, there are reasons the state should not allow gay marriage, which have no moral component. My argument about procreation still stands, in that propogation of society is a compelling state interest.
I also think it unwise, given the conventional wisdom that a child is typically brought up by a mother and a father, that we encourage a social policy that denies children these developmental necessities.
I don't expect you to agree with them, but there are non-moral arguments on the anti-gay-marriage side.
I know a number of married couples who have elected not to ever have children. Should the government fine them or invalidate their marriage? Gay people can also still produce children (and do regularly).
Given your acceptance of "conventional wisdom" on the father/mother child rearing dynamic I suggest that divorce be outlawed and be made punishable by fine/imprisonment under the criminal code. This should also be retroactive in order to repair the damage already done to our society.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I think these are exceptions trying to dictate the rules. Fertility is not easy to measure. Many people who are infertile or sterile don't know it, and it would take an enormous amount of resources for the state to test every single marriage candidate. The state gives the benefit of the doubt to straight couples that, in most cases, they will bear children. Gay marriages are different in that biology dictates the impossibility of procreation within the marriage. The state can rely on this fact.
Divorce is a social necessity because it also is sometimes done in the best interest of the children. Forcing a couple to stay together against their will is destructive to their offspring.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I think these are exceptions trying to dictate the rules. Fertility is not easy to measure. Many people who are infertile or sterile don't know it, and it would take an enormous amount of resources for the state to test every single marriage candidate. The state gives the benefit of the doubt to straight couples that, in most cases, they will bear children. Gay marriages are different in that biology dictates the impossibility of procreation within the marriage. The state can rely on this fact.
Divorce is a social necessity because it also is sometimes done in the best interest of the children. Forcing a couple to stay together against their will is destructive to their offspring.
These are people whom, to my knowledge, are biologically capable of producing children but have decided not to. Gays produce children all the time either the old fashioned way or by using donors/surrogates.
But you said that the mother/father dynamic is a required "developmental necessity". You can't have your cake and eat it too. By allowing divorce we "encourage a social policy".
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Unfortunately, Atreus, you are a bigot and like all bigots you can't see your own bigotry. But the people arguing with you can see it. Like all bigots your real justification for your prejudice is that you are right. You don't know why you are right, you just feel it. It is the nature of irrational prejudice. You have a terrible disease. Try to get over it. Try to understand that in my world you wouldn't be allowed to marry because you are stupid. It is much better for my ideal society that stupid genes don't mingle. It's just the way I see it. For the good of society I would have to cut off your balls.
Thank you for your input, but I'd prefer it if you addressed my arguments, instead of personal attacks.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I think these are exceptions trying to dictate the rules. Fertility is not easy to measure. Many people who are infertile or sterile don't know it, and it would take an enormous amount of resources for the state to test every single marriage candidate. The state gives the benefit of the doubt to straight couples that, in most cases, they will bear children. Gay marriages are different in that biology dictates the impossibility of procreation within the marriage. The state can rely on this fact.
Divorce is a social necessity because it also is sometimes done in the best interest of the children. Forcing a couple to stay together against their will is destructive to their offspring.
These are people whom, to my knowledge, are biologically capable of producing children but have decided not to. Gays produce children all the time either the old fashioned way or by using donors/surrogates.
But you said that the mother/father dynamic is a required "developmental necessity". You can't have your cake and eat it too. By allowing divorce we "encourage a social policy".
Divorce is not encouraged, but marriage is.
On the child-bearing argument: That's a good argument.
For me it's a question of statistics. Gays, I'd wager, are overwhelmingly less likely than straight couples to bear children through a surrogate mother as straight couples are to bear children naturally. I suppose I could say the state would take that under consideration, but that's a weak argument, especially in light of the fact that straight couples may be unable to procreate at all, and so why aren't they subject to the same scrutiny, etc. etc.
I'll have to think on this and get back to you.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Unfortunately, Atreus, you are a bigot and like all bigots you can't see your own bigotry. But the people arguing with you can see it. Like all bigots your real justification for your prejudice is that you are right. You don't know why you are right, you just feel it. It is the nature of irrational prejudice. You have a terrible disease. Try to get over it. Try to understand that in my world you wouldn't be allowed to marry because you are stupid. It is much better for my ideal society that stupid genes don't mingle. It's just the way I see it. For the good of society I would have to cut off your balls.
Thank you for your input, but I'd prefer it if you addressed my arguments, instead of personal attacks.
You have no arguments, as I stated. That is exactly your problem. What you present are rationalizations of your bigotry. You can't give a single rational reason why gays shouldn't be able to marry. You are a bigot. If that offends you stop being one. I can't change the fact that you are a bigot any more than I can change the fact the sky is blue. I didn't attack you, I just stated what you are. Any negative interpretation you place on that is your own. I have to assume you just don't like bigots, regardless of the fact you are one. Naturally, however, like all bigots, you can't see who you are so your schizophrenia is normal as with all bigots. And I feel it is a perfect exchange. In your world homosexuals won't be allowed to have the highest form of sacred monogamous relationship, and in my world you will be relieved of your balls. If you can see what an asshole I am, welcome to a vision of yourself.
Yes I agree. Since the propagation of the society is a "compelling state interest"Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Unfortunately, Atreus, you are a bigot and like all bigots you can't see your own bigotry. But the people arguing with you can see it. Like all bigots your real justification for your prejudice is that you are right. You don't know why you are right, you just feel it. It is the nature of irrational prejudice. You have a terrible disease. Try to get over it. Try to understand that in my world you wouldn't be allowed to marry because you are stupid. It is much better for my ideal society that stupid genes don't mingle. It's just the way I see it. For the good of society I would have to cut off your balls.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I think these are exceptions trying to dictate the rules. Fertility is not easy to measure. Many people who are infertile or sterile don't know it, and it would take an enormous amount of resources for the state to test every single marriage candidate. The state gives the benefit of the doubt to straight couples that, in most cases, they will bear children. Gay marriages are different in that biology dictates the impossibility of procreation within the marriage. The state can rely on this fact.
Divorce is a social necessity because it also is sometimes done in the best interest of the children. Forcing a couple to stay together against their will is destructive to their offspring.
These are people whom, to my knowledge, are biologically capable of producing children but have decided not to. Gays produce children all the time either the old fashioned way or by using donors/surrogates.
But you said that the mother/father dynamic is a required "developmental necessity". You can't have your cake and eat it too. By allowing divorce we "encourage a social policy".
We need to always be working towards the ideal society. An ideal society is one in which everyone is agreeable and acceptable to me.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Thoughts on surrogacy: (And no, I'm not comparing gay marriage to beastiality)
A man and a horse could bear children through surrogacy. The ability to produce children by external means does not mean your marriage has produced children.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Thoughts on surrogacy: (And no, I'm not comparing gay marriage to beastiality)
A man and a horse could bear children through surrogacy. The ability to produce children by external means does not mean your marriage has produced children.
wat?